More fracking hysteria: Colorado city puts ban on November ballot

posted at 11:21 am on August 10, 2012 by Rob Bluey

Add the city of Longmont, Colo., to the growing list of communities freaking out over fracking. This enclave in liberal Boulder County will ask citizens to vote on a fracking ban this November. The local newspaper has the story:

The measure would amend the city charter to ban hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a process that reaches oil and gas deposits by using high-pressure fluid to crack rock deep underground. Opponents claim the practice is environmentally damaging; supporters say the practice has been standard for years and occurs too deep to taint groundwater.

Longmont is currently facing a lawsuit from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission over restrictions the City Council recently adopted on oil and gas drilling.

Whether it’s Colorado or New York, there’s no shortage of fracking hysteria in the news. Thanks in part to liberal filmmaker Josh Fox and his legion of anti-fracking followers, the issue is among the most contentious debates in America. Now there’s growing concern that federal bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency will step in to shut down successful projects that have brought economic prosperity to communities in North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing — to back them.

For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false, researchers told The Associated Press.

Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren’t being confirmed by monitoring, either.

And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don’t acknowledge that natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel than coal.

Of course, this was known before the AP waded into the debate. The filmmaking duo of Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are working on a documentary that tells the truth about fracking. “FrackNation,” which inspired donations of more than $200,000 on Kickstarter, confronts some of the myths perpetuated by Fox and other anti-fracking activists.

Fox’s movie, “Gasland,” served as the inspiration for many of the claims that are being used to attack fracking. The supposed rise in breast-cancer cases was perhaps one of the most effective — and alarming — statistics cited by Fox. Yet, according to the AP, it’s not true:

Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of “Gasland,” a film that criticizes the industry. Fox, who lives in Brooklyn, has a new short film called “The Sky is Pink.”

But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said Simon Craddock Lee, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred.

And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either.

“We don’t,” said Chandini Portteus, Komen’s vice president of research, adding that they sympathize with people’s fears and concerns, but “what we do know is a little bit, and what we don’t know is a lot” about breast cancer and the environment.

Yet Fox tells viewers in an ominous voice that “In Texas, as throughout the United States, cancer rates fell — except in one place— in the Barnett Shale.”

The AP confronted Fox about his claims about breast-cancer cases in Texas. He stood by the assertion.

The AP’s story is a refreshing example of the critical thinking and skepticism that should take place in newsrooms each and every day. Only in this case, some of the most misleading and false assertions went unchallenged for years.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Now there’s growing concern that federal bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency will step in to shut down successful projects that have brought economic prosperity to communities in North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

While the first state is reliably red, Mittens would do well to highlight the latter two, and move them into the red category as well.

This is another demonstration of the Fantasy Novel Neo-Medievalism that has gripped our “Educated” classes. They are working hard to create a pre-adolescent fantasy world without oil, without coal, without atomic energy, without any of the technical and technological infrastructure that supports a high civilization. They dream of a world where they and their friends can spend the evenings sipping vintage wines by candlelight, while their energy needs are all met by their own personal solar panels. Wait till they find out that the glass manufacture for these panels involves use of toxic chemical substances that pollute the environment …

(Sorry, words cannot even begin to express the detestation and contempt I have for these destructive romantics.)

Now there’s growing concern that federal bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency will step in to shut down successful projects that have brought economic prosperity to communities in North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

EPA can’t do crap, unless the state (which the city is under) declares that the EPA can come in to investigate.

This is another demonstration of the Fantasy Novel Neo-Medievalism that has gripped our “Educated” classes. They are working hard to create a pre-adolescent fantasy world without oil, without coal, without atomic energy…

The brilliant opposition to cheap and abundant energy should be lined up, laughed at, and made to turn in their cell phones, I-Pads/Pods/Phones, etc., and then flogged on national TV for their eloquent stupidity, for all to see and enjoy.

Not surprised. I live in Wisconsin, and we’re seeing the same thing with sand mining(which is used for fracking). Lots of jobs have been added, but for some reason, people are up in arms about pulling sand out of the ground that’s been laying around doing nothing for millions of years!

This is a lot like the moron who came to our house yesterday asking to sign the anti-coal petition.

My Husband made me proud, telling the kid he was brain washed, and had he ever been to the supposed stream where there is “supposedly” no salmon (there is a bunch there now), and how the little town that is there now was started on coal, and how the old mines are still burning under the ground. The kid was an idiot.

There is a simple solution to this insanity, cut the city of Longmont, Colo off from use of all petroleum derived products. No electricity derived from natural gas, oil or coal. No gasoline, diesel, kerosene or any lubricating oils. No plastics, synthetic rubbers or synthetic polymers. the problem will solve itself within a couple of weeks at most.

There is a simple solution to this insanity, cut the city of Longmont, Colo off from use of all petroleum derived products. No electricity derived from natural gas, oil or coal. No gasoline, diesel, kerosene or any lubricating oils. No plastics, synthetic rubbers or synthetic polymers. the problem will solve itself within a couple of weeks at most.

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

depends on the area. Alaskan morons WANT to live with nothing…

The idiot who came by our house to sign a petition, live in an area called “Buffalo Mine Road” (hello there is a reason for this name). We know where he lives. It has no water well (the wells and water is bad out there or you can’t get water at all), the electric is spotty due to the trees coming down on the power lines, and they use wood for heat.

The guy obviously doesn’t know there may be a ban on burning around his area due to spruce bark beetles. LOL… the guy (and many like him) are oblivious and think we should conform to what he thinks.

Although I have little doubt if this idiot in the White House is re-elected, it will end early next year.

No way Obama unleashed is going to allow domestic energy production other than the usual unicorn fart non-production the lunatic environmentalists favor.

NoDonkey on August 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Federalism! If Colorado wants to screw themselves, Texas can profit from their stupidity.

IDK. I think that if (God forbid) Obama is reelected, Republicans in Congress will be more willing to stand up to his regulatory overreach. They won’t be worried about making him a martyr like Clinton.

Just like coal, liberals won’t be happy until they destroy every source of energy we have as they wait for the Magical Energy Unicorn to poop out some mysterious alien “clean” energy source. Whatever that is…

I guess they think those massive oil tankers are run on a wish and a prayer instead of fuel made from oil.

Biofuels, like for what 25% of our corn crop is reserved, take more energy to produce than each gallon made provides when used.

All that adds to costs to the consumer, like how CA won’t allow new power plants to be built there. And God forbid someone utter the word ‘nuclear’ except in a sentence including the phrase ‘no, not ever’ or ‘Oh God, oh God, we’re all gonna die!’

Liberals nationwide really need to be voted out of office, down to the position of Dog Catcher.

It is almost entirely responsible for the outrageous economic growth in ND.

Therefore it should be banned globally and in space too.

CorporatePiggy on August 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I imagine that is why investors aren’t fully exploring the lower reaches of the Williston Basin as much as they might want to bcs of the uncertainty of politics regarding fraking.
Living in SW ND, oil has only lapped at the edges of the county I live in. But we are getting oil people moving in for housing.
I’m not certain yet whether I’m anxious for oil development, but it will happen anyway.
So I guess I’d like to see if somebody would want my mineral rights for a fair price while I’m alive.
Get rid of the hysteria & uncertainty & I bet all of W. ND & SD would economically explode.
Not necessarily a bad thing.

I remember a couple of years ago, a friend was telling me the only thing keeping his nationwide parts supply business alive was a huge construction boom in North Dakota.

I tried to act happy for him, but I had this huge urge to say, “Shhh… keep it down! If Washington finds out about this they’ll kill it.”

Seriously, that’s how these people see the world. They never welcome a new source of wealth and prosperity; all they see is a giant bullseye.

logis on August 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM

We North Dakotans have been shushing folks about how good things are out here.
But I will tell you that our neck of the woods is also becoming almost unbearable for civilized people.
I live 70 miles from Dickinson, the closest ‘big’ city to me with any reasonable shopping.
I realized I can’t go here anymore for shopping bcs the shelves are empty. Everywhere in town they are empty.
We actually are not capable of handling this huge influx of people.
We have no infrastructure.
It has made my world a most unpleasant place.
I still don’t begrudge the development, though.

I can be civil while bitterly clinging but most don’t like the look of the assault rifle.

Slade73 on August 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM

That depends on how you define “Most”. Personally I love my Colt AR-15. Since it’s only feature distinguishing it from a United States Army issue M-16 is the internal lack of an auto sear and the accompanying auto select pin, it pretty much falls right smack in the middle of the so called “Scary assault Weapon” classification.

That’s the problem you see. It isn’t necessarily so. I do realize that city & state & Federal regs get in the way.
But if there were no regulations, building wold explode. But then that wouldn’t necessarily be always good, either.
I see building permits as a necessity in urban & city areas.

In Dickinson, people were burned bad by the last oil boom which didn’t last in the 80s.
A lot of people went broke.
Plus the explosion in growth is making it unlivable for natives.
Imagine living in Deadwood SD during the gold rush there.
This is Western ND right now.
If you have not experienced it, then you have no idea.
There are places that are literally ruined. Not really environmentally speaking. It’s just such a clusterf$%^ no one with a family would want to be there. Hell, not even right minded single people.
Growth with no planning & limits is not a good thing.
Plus there’s another thing, even if you want to build/repair etc. in this area, you cannot get honest people to do work.
I’m serious when I say if you want a contractor to do anything for you, there’s a waiting list of months.
And the DOT cannot keep up with the fixing of the roads, no matter how much $$$ you could throw at them.
No, the boom is causing a lot of problems. But I am open minded enough to not consider it all bad.
But from what I’ve seen in Stanley ND & my bro in law is an administrator in the HS there, I do NOT want that to happen to my area.
I would have to move. I couldn’t stand it bcs it is absolutely horrible in Stanley.

We actually are not capable of handling this huge influx of people. We have no infrastructure. It has made my world a most unpleasant place. I still don’t begrudge the development, though.
Badger40 on August 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Part of the “problem” (such as it is) may be that it’s nearly the ONLY booming area in America right now. Companies are desperate for investment opportunities, so they’re treating this like a gold rush.

But there are a LOT worse problems to have than that. The leftists are chomping at the bit right now to pull the rug out from under all that investment capital at the worst possible time. If that happens, you’ll wish like crazy you had the problems you have now.

I live in San Diego, California. When my parents moved here in 1970 the city’s population was… 275,000 today it’s 4 million. I seriously doubt you are seeing growth that even comes close to that. No disrespect intended but I get the feeling I am hearing more NIMBY than anything else.

The amount of growth you are experiencing can easily be managed, but before it can be managed, the people have to want that kind of growth. I do not blame you for not wanting that kind of growth, I moved out of the city and into a rural community in the county because I did not like the overcrowding.

And quite frankly and honesty the definition of overcrowding is a highly personal definition which is solely dependent upon how much open space each individual feels the need to be surrounded by.

The crime rate where I live is a fraction of what it is in San Diego, but oddly enough is statistically nearly the same on a proportional basis as it is in San Diego.

That depends on how you define “Most”. Personally I love my Colt AR-15. Since it’s only feature distinguishing it from a United States Army issue M-16 is the internal lack of an auto sear and the accompanying auto select pin, it pretty much falls right smack in the middle of the so called “Scary assault Weapon” classification.

Part of the “problem” (such as it is) may be that it’s nearly the ONLY booming area in America right now. Companies are desperate for investment opportunities, so they’re treating this like a gold rush.

But there are a LOT worse problems to have than that. The leftists are chomping at the bit right now to pull the rug out from under all that investment capital at the worst possible time. If that happens, you’ll wish like crazy you had the problems you have now.

logis on August 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Which is why this nonsense about fraking being bad has to be scientifically put to rest.
I think there is a lot of holdout by investors both local & nationwide in W. ND bcs of this environmental EPA strong-arming BS.
Investors wouldn’t be near as skittish to even build their own infrastructure if they knew that the Feds weren’t going to possibly shut them down.
Instead, many of the current building projects are waiting upon the state to build the infrastructure FOR them.

actually I am right about this. States are now suing the EPA for overstepping. Look into it, been interesting as well as very quietly happening.

upinak on August 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Yes, and we need more of this. The “Several States” were Constitutionally given certain lawful areas of governance for very good reasons, not the least of which being to keep an out-of-control national central government from developing.

The 20th and early 21st centuries have seen a sad decline in this regard, and we’ve watched Congress cede more and more of their authority AND RESPONSIBILITIES to the executive branch. This is how Republics are lost and dictatorships are born.

We need to vote in some Congress-critters with a modicum of spinal material.

Although I have little doubt if this idiot in the White House is re-elected, it will end early next year.

No way Obama unleashed is going to allow domestic energy production other than the usual unicorn fart non-production the lunatic environmentalists favor.

NoDonkey on August 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Federalism! If Colorado wants to screw themselves, Texas can profit from their stupidity.

IDK. I think that if (God forbid) Obama is reelected, Republicans in Congress will be more willing to stand up to his regulatory overreach. They won’t be worried about making him a martyr like Clinton.

29Victor on August 10, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Because the Obama administration is so respectful of Congress?

Obama will do what he wants. Who’s going to call him on it, the Supreme Court? We saw how that works.

The press? Please.

Obama gets re-elected, domestic energy production will plummet. Game over.

Despite all the hysteria, the one valid concern about fracking in many parts of Colorado, that is not really talked about as much, is the extremely large amount of water used in the process.
See the water rights / rain water thread for more about that.

I’m not talking about possible contamination of ground water – which I don’t believe. I’m talking about sucking up a lot of water to use in the process. There is a real possibility that with enough fracking wells, other people in the vicinity of the fracking could see their wells run dry.
NOT a reason to stop it, but something that really should be evaluated.

I live in San Diego, California. When my parents moved here in 1970 the city’s population was… 275,000 today it’s 4 million. I seriously doubt you are seeing growth that even comes close to that. No disrespect intended but I get the feeling I am hearing more NIMBY than anything else.

The amount of growth you are experiencing can easily be managed, but before it can be managed, the people have to want that kind of growth. I do not blame you for not wanting that kind of growth, I moved out of the city and into a rural community in the county because I did not like the overcrowding.

And quite frankly and honesty the definition of overcrowding is a highly personal definition which is solely dependent upon how much open space each individual feels the need to be surrounded by.

The crime rate where I live is a fraction of what it is in San Diego, but oddly enough is statistically nearly the same on a proportional basis as it is in San Diego.

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I lived in SoCal growing up in the late 70s & part of the early 80s off & on.
I know exactly what happened there.
My family still lives there.
CA sucks now. The growth has exploded so much that it is unbearable to live there, IMO.
I’m not a NIMBY girl. So I resent your classification as such.
What I am is concerned about explosive growth that is too fast.
That growth in the town of Stanley ND has caused roads in the area to get so bad that they are driving on unstable road beds that throw up dust into the local communities like you have never seen before.
This is a rural state my friend.
And explosive growth in the rural areas from what I have seen has gone unchecked & there is a LOT of irresponsibility & general lack of concern for locals’ quality of life.
There is a lot of respect that has gone untended by outsider towards the locals.
It is getting better.
But there are two sides to this thing.
Here in ND we just want to be respected.
And there are some people that are coming in here like blazes stomping all over people who just want a decent plan worked out so that the locals are not forced out of the own homes.
This is not too much to ask.
I own several thousand acres. So I’m not worried about getting crowded at my house.
What I’m worried about are things like my own daughter is experiencing in Dickinson. And that is being slowly forced out of a home due to explosive growth.
We need to all worjk together, locals & outsiders, to try & maintain a decent quality of life while maintaining growth.
This land can only physically support so many people. And I don’t care how much you plan, there are finite resources out here, as well as everywhere.
The congestion of a huge city urban area like SoCal is not what North Dakotans want. None of us want that.
And this land will not support that sort of growth.
Come to ND & see what I’m talking about.
But now friend, I am no NIMPY hypocrite. I would gladly share some space with outsiders.
But I’m not going to stand idly by while they develop the land unreasonable.
Carrying Capacity is a real thing.

Investors wouldn’t be near as skittish to even build their own infrastructure if they knew that the Feds weren’t going to possibly shut them down.
Instead, many of the current building projects are waiting upon the state to build the infrastructure FOR them.

Badger40 on August 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Yea, that could be quite the serious problem. Here in San Diego county ordinances required the contractors to build the supporting infrastructure for all of their developments. Roads, schools, water transmission, electrical transmission, commercial retail property space and fire and medical facilities were all added into to the cost on a per capita usage basis.

Like I said though, the populace has to want the growth or it will be a horrible mess, the planning for it isn’t that difficult.

I’m not talking about possible contamination of ground water – which I don’t believe. I’m talking about sucking up a lot of water to use in the process. There is a real possibility that with enough fracking wells, other people in the vicinity of the fracking could see their wells run dry.
NOT a reason to stop it, but something that really should be evaluated.

dentarthurdent on August 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Actually per the CO Conservation Board, any “oil/drilling” companies are to use the surface water before using any aquifers, even if an aquifer is a known contaminated one.

This is the kind of debate I was involved in when I was on a town council for a few years (in Colorado Springs, CO area). The town was experiencing a lot of growth at the time (mid to late 90s), and some people wanted to stop it all to keep the “small town” feel. Interestingly enough, some of those people had come from California and now that they were in they wanted to keep everyone else out. Others were looking to (finally) make money on the growth from their decades old property investments – any way they could with no regard for the impact to the town.
I felt my job on the council was just to try to “manage” how the growth happened to ensure new developments were done properly according to the town’s master plans and zoning regulations. I did not believe my job (as an elected government official) was to stop anything, just make sure it was done right and did not have a bad impact on the town.

Actually per the CO Conservation Board, any “oil/drilling” companies are to use the surface water before using any aquifers, even if an aquifer is a known contaminated one.

Look it up.

upinak on August 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

That may well be true (I don’t know), so I won’t doubt you. But there are many areas where they want to drill, like the plains just east of Colorado Springs, where there is no surface water. Their only choice would be to drill a water well first to feed the fracking well.

I’m not against it by any means. Just sayin if they drill their water well into certain aquifers, they could cause nearby ranchers and homeowners to have water wells run dry. That requires a state permit to re-drill the water well, and re-drilling an individual well costs easily $10K or more around here depending on the depth required.

This is so embarrassing for Longmont. I was born and raised in Longmont. Couldn’t wait to get out of there. Finally did. This is a perfect example why. I couldn’t find work there, yet the radical environmentalists were working to destroy any jobs they could. Every time I go back I see how Longmont has gone further downhill. It is a city in decline from what it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

You are partially correct, California is screwed up right now. But not entirely for the reason you suggest. California’s problems stem more from the government corruption and greed that followed the growth then from the growth itself.

Again, there was no disrespect intended in the NIMBY suggestion and I apologize for giving the appearance of applying it to you, that was not my intention.

Growth can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing, it all depends on your point of view and the amount of planning involved.

Where I live for example, we are and have been blocking a proposed multi-billion dollar development. We are doing so for two basic reasons.

1) infrastructure costs. The developer is attempting to put the 40 million dollar water transmission cost on the town where I live. We said, no way in hell. You want that water transmission, you pay for it. And road access, another 25 million dollars that the developer wants us to shoulder, again, we told them, nope, you pay for it or no way in hell.

2) Their is no economic equalization factor involved. This proposed development would turn 40,000 acres of undeveloped rural countryside into 5000 residential units (single family homes) without providing any substantial increase in the local employment market.

Where I live for example, we are and have been blocking a proposed multi-billion dollar development. We are doing so for two basic reasons.

1) infrastructure costs. The developer is attempting to put the 40 million dollar water transmission cost on the town where I live. We said, no way in hell. You want that water transmission, you pay for it. And road access, another 25 million dollars that the developer wants us to shoulder, again, we told them, nope, you pay for it or no way in hell.

2) Their is no economic equalization factor involved. This proposed development would turn 40,000 acres of undeveloped rural countryside into 5000 residential units (single family homes) without providing any substantial increase in the local employment market.

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

We had the same kind of issues in the town I was in when I was on the town council.
1) A concrete company wanted to build a batch plant right next to a bunch of houses, would have put slow heavy trucks onto a main thoroughfare at a blind curve under a railroad bridge, and would have used 15% of the town’s total well water supply. They could have built on the south end of town where it was already zoned appropriately and drilled their own well, and been closer to all the new construction – but that’s not what they wanted. We denied their zoning change.
2) An RV dealership needed a zoning change to build dealership lot right in front of the high school, and in front of a neighborhood of fairly high end houses. They could have built further south where the zoning was already set and they would have been closer to a highway interchange and away from the school and housing – but that’s not what they wanted. Also denied.

We had the same kind of issues in the town I was in when I was on the town council.
1) A concrete company wanted to build a batch plant right next to a bunch of houses, would have put slow heavy trucks onto a main thoroughfare at a blind curve under a railroad bridge, and would have used 15% of the town’s total well water supply. They could have built on the south end of town where it was already zoned appropriately and drilled their own well, and been closer to all the new construction – but that’s not what they wanted. We denied their zoning change.
2) An RV dealership needed a zoning change to build dealership lot right in front of the high school, and in front of a neighborhood of fairly high end houses. They could have built further south where the zoning was already set and they would have been closer to a highway interchange and away from the school and housing – but that’s not what they wanted. Also denied.

dentarthurdent on August 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The thing is, as was in your case, I am not opposed on general principal to development, but before I will offer any support to it, it has to show a net positive gain to the community. We are located 40 miles northeast of San Diego.

The only jobs that this development project would produce would be of a temporary nature as the developer is a commercial home builder and the construction crews would primarily be… His. This contractor, yea he lives 50 some miles away and none of his construction workers are from our town.

So, this planned development project would increase the burden on our infrastructure, without the contractor paying anything to increase the capacity of our infrastructure.

Our population is about 45,000 right now, our schools are not over crowded nor our public services over burdened. The addition of another 5000 families would change things considerably.

Basically speaking, their is no economic incentive for us to allow this development and significant burdens on us to allow it. The contractor would make out like a bandit, entirely at our expense. Sorry, not interested.

So, this planned development project would increase the burden on our infrastructure, without the contractor paying anything to increase the capacity of our infrastructure.

Our population is about 45,000 right now, our schools are not over crowded nor our public services over burdened. The addition of another 5000 families would change things considerably.

Basically speaking, their is no economic incentive for us to allow this development and significant burdens on us to allow it. The contractor would make out like a bandit, entirely at our expense. Sorry, not interested.

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Yup – exactly the situation for the cases I detailed. At the time my town (Monument, CO) had an official population of about 3000 people (within actual town limits).
But we had also just annexed a large area (from unicorporated county land) owned by a developer (per developer request to be annexed) who was planning 3000 housing units and a bunch of commercial/retail. Nothing wrong with what they had planned, and as a result the town population is now about 12,000 and they have a Walmart, a couple major shopping centers and some new schools. It’s all fine if they do it right.

This is another demonstration of the Fantasy Novel Neo-Medievalism that has gripped our “Educated” classes. They are working hard to create a pre-adolescent fantasy world without oil, without coal, without atomic energy, without any of the technical and technological infrastructure that supports a high civilization. They dream of a world where they and their friends can spend the evenings sipping vintage wines by candlelight, while their energy needs are all met by their own personal solar panels. Wait till they find out that the glass manufacture for these panels involves use of toxic chemical substances that pollute the environment …

(Sorry, words cannot even begin to express the detestation and contempt I have for these destructive romantics.)

I think it must be the altitude that makes some people in Colorado so light headed that they are so easily taken advantage of by certain unscrupulous ‘environmentalists’. The ranchers and timber men I’ve met from Colorado were all very well grounded and sensible people and tend to be… conservative.

If you care to check the historical evidence you’ll find that the entire region has been prone to quakes from time to time throughout history and had NOTHING to do with fracking, or oil drilling ( which was blamed for a group of quakes in the region around the 1930′s.)

The area is so prone to quakes that the Mississippi river has changed its entire course more than once… which accounts for the fork-like river beds that form the delta.

I think it must be the altitude that makes some people in Colorado so light headed that they are so easily taken advantage of by certain unscrupulous ‘environmentalists’. The ranchers and timber men I’ve met from Colorado were all very well grounded and sensible people and tend to be… conservative.

thatsafactjack on August 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Probably not the altitude. Colorado Springs is higher elevation than Boulder, but is VERY conservative.
I think the problem is the Boulder residents are higher in other ways.

I live in Longmont. The anti-fracking people are a typically uninformed, overbearing, well-off crowd with far too much spare time. And they crassly set up their tables and tents at non-political family summer gatherings. Awful.

Longmont isn’t Boulder, but it is not the conservative bulwark it once was. Boulderites are attracted by sensible real estate costs, to the detriment of city.

The granddaughter of one of my friends just received a degree from a liberal university in Northern CA… a few weeks ago I listened as she went on and on to her parents and siblings about how horrible fracking is……. everything she was saying was strictly propaganda, but she believes every word she was repeating. Therein lies the crux of our problem… university brainwashing.

I’m not surprised. Longmont used to be a pretty decent place and a fairly large part of Colorado’s oil & gas industry, but a lot of Boulderites have been moving there since many people are priced out of the People’s Republic by draconian building codes. Including my left-wing, Obama campaigning sister-in-law, ugh.

If you care to check the historical evidence you’ll find that the entire region has been prone to quakes from time to time throughout history and had NOTHING to do with fracking, or oil drilling ( which was blamed for a group of quakes in the region around the 1930′s.)

The area is so prone to quakes that the Mississippi river has changed its entire course more than once… which accounts for the fork-like river beds that form the delta.

thatsafactjack on August 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Notice you said; “prone to quakes”. You made no reference to how strong they were. My point being that we now have strong quakes that you can feel and do damage. And I also stated that it’s almost impossible to prove that fracking can cause anything.

So go back to your propaganda. I’m just here to occasionally offer a different point of view.

From 1972 to 2008 only two to six earthquakes were reported per year in Oklahoma, and were often too small for people to notice. However, in 2009 nearly 50 earthquakes were recorded, and that number more than doubled in 2010 to 1,047, with 103 powerful enough to be felt.

But again, I am almost certain it would be impossible to “prove” that fracking can be the sole cause of an Earthquake. Also a lot of people believe that Fracking can pollute drinking water. Me? I dunno.